pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.10893 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-11 · 💻 cs.CL

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Grounded or Guessing? LVLM Confidence Estimation via Blind-Image Contrastive Ranking

Reza Khanmohammadi , Erfan Miahi , Simerjot Kaur , Charese H. Smiley , Ivan Brugere , Kundan Thind , Mohammad M. Ghassemi
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-12 03:52 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CL
keywords confidence estimationlarge vision-language modelsvisual groundingcontrastive rankinghallucination detectioncalibrationprobing
0
0 comments X

The pith

BICR trains confidence probes for vision-language models by ranking hidden states from real images against blacked-out versions to favor visually grounded predictions.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Large vision-language models often produce fluent answers by guessing from text patterns alone, with the image adding no information, yet standard confidence estimators cannot spot this because they never see the model without the image. The paper proposes BICR, a lightweight probe trained on frozen model hidden states that are extracted once with the actual image and once with the image blacked out while the question stays fixed. A ranking loss penalizes the probe for giving higher confidence to the blacked-out case, forcing it to treat the presence of visual information as evidence of reliability. Across five LVLMs and tasks including visual question answering, hallucination detection, medical imaging and document understanding, this yields the strongest average calibration and discrimination scores while using far fewer parameters than prior probing approaches.

Core claim

BICR extracts hidden states from a frozen LVLM twice—once for the real image-question pair and once for the same question with the image blacked out—then trains a small probe on the real-image states under a contrastive ranking loss that enforces lower confidence for the blind-image view, thereby making explicit whether a prediction depends on visual grounding.

What carries the argument

Blind-Image Contrastive Ranking (BICR), a training regularizer that applies a ranking loss between paired hidden states from real and blacked-out images to penalize ungrounded confidence.

If this is right

  • BICR simultaneously leads in calibration and discrimination metrics averaged across five modern LVLMs.
  • Discrimination improvements remain statistically significant even under cluster-aware analysis.
  • The probe requires 4-18 times fewer parameters than the strongest existing probing baselines.
  • The same framework improves performance on visual question answering, object hallucination detection, medical imaging, and financial document tasks.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Similar blind-input contrasts could be applied to other multimodal settings where one modality may be ignored.
  • The method shows that explicit negative examples of ungrounded inference can sharpen uncertainty estimates without extra inference cost.
  • Deployments that need to know whether an answer truly used the image could adopt this probe as a lightweight filter.

Load-bearing premise

Penalizing higher probe confidence on blacked-out image states will make the probe treat visual grounding as a reliable indicator of prediction correctness instead of latching onto some other correlation in the hidden states.

What would settle it

If ablating the ranking loss leaves discrimination performance unchanged or higher on the same benchmark across LVLMs, the contrastive mechanism is not responsible for the reported gains.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.10893 by Charese H. Smiley, Erfan Miahi, Ivan Brugere, Kundan Thind, Mohammad M. Ghassemi, Reza Khanmohammadi, Simerjot Kaur.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of our method (BICR) and headline results. (A) BICR pairs each question with two views, the real image and a blank counterfactual, and trains a shared probe on top of a frozen large vision-language model (LVLM). The ranking loss Lrank enforces that the real-view confidence cbase exceeds the blank-view confidence cblank by a margin γ, teaching the probe that confidence must be grounded in the visua… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: One representative sample from each source dataset in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Per-seed reliability diagrams for each ablation variant. Each panel shows one reliability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p044_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Per-dataset reliability diagrams for Qwen/Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct. Each panel corresponds to one of the seven source datasets (n in panel titles denotes the number of shared test samples for this LVLM). Each method contributes five translucent curves in a method-specific color, one per seed, so the spread visualizes seed-to-seed variability. Visualization style influenced by reliability diagrams in Nakkiran e… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Per-dataset reliability diagrams for llava-hf/llava-v1.6-vicuna-13b-hf. Plotting conventions match [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p060_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Per-dataset reliability diagrams for OpenGVLab/InternVL3_5-14B-HF. Plotting conven￾tions match [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p061_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Per-dataset reliability diagrams for deepseek-ai/deepseek-vl2. Plotting conventions match [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p062_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Per-dataset reliability diagrams for google/gemma-3-27b-it. Plotting conventions match [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p063_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Pooled per-LVLM reliability diagrams. Each panel fixes one LVLM and pools every [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p064_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Pooled per-dataset reliability diagrams. Each panel fixes one source dataset and pools [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p065_11.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Large vision-language models suffer from visual ungroundedness: they can produce a fluent, confident, and even correct response driven entirely by language priors, with the image contributing nothing to the prediction. Existing confidence estimation methods cannot detect this, as they observe model behavior under normal inference with no mechanism to determine whether a prediction was shaped by the image or by text alone. We introduce BICR (Blind-Image Contrastive Ranking), a model-agnostic confidence estimation framework that makes this contrast explicit during training by extracting hidden states from a frozen LVLM twice: once with the real image-question pair, and once with the image blacked out while the question is held fixed. A lightweight probe is trained on the real-image hidden state and regularized by a ranking loss that penalizes higher confidence on the blacked-out view, teaching it to treat visual grounding as a signal of reliability at zero additional inference cost. Evaluated across five modern LVLMs and seven baselines on a benchmark covering visual question answering, object hallucination detection, medical imaging, and financial document understanding, BICR achieves the best cross-LVLM average on both calibration and discrimination simultaneously, with statistically significant discrimination gains robust to cluster-aware analysis at 4-18x fewer parameters than the strongest probing baseline.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces BICR, a model-agnostic confidence estimation method for LVLMs that extracts hidden states from a frozen model on real image-question pairs and on the same question with the image blacked out, then trains a lightweight probe on the real-image states regularized by a ranking loss that penalizes higher confidence on the blacked-out view. The central claim is that this teaches the probe to treat visual grounding as a reliability signal, yielding the best cross-LVLM average on both calibration and discrimination (with statistically significant discrimination gains robust to cluster-aware analysis) across VQA, hallucination detection, medical imaging, and financial document tasks, at 4-18x fewer parameters than the strongest probing baseline and zero added inference cost.

Significance. If the result holds, the work would be significant for addressing visual ungroundedness in LVLMs: it supplies an explicit contrastive training signal without modifying the base model or incurring inference overhead, and the reported cross-model, multi-domain evaluation with parameter efficiency is a concrete strength. The approach is lightweight and directly targets a known failure mode (language-prior-driven predictions) that standard post-hoc confidence methods cannot detect.

major comments (2)
  1. [Ranking loss and training procedure (§3)] The ranking loss (described in the abstract and §3) penalizes higher probe confidence on blacked-out hidden states, but the manuscript provides no direct evidence or ablation that the probe learns to use grounding-relevant dimensions of the hidden-state difference rather than incidental ones (global activation shifts, norm changes, or question-specific language patterns that differ across views). This assumption is load-bearing for the claim that BICR solves visual ungroundedness rather than merely fitting a contrastive artifact; without supporting analysis (e.g., probing which dimensions drive the ranking or controlled ablations), the reported gains in calibration and discrimination cannot be confidently attributed to the intended mechanism.
  2. [Experimental results and tables] Table 3 and the cross-LVLM average results claim statistically significant discrimination gains robust to cluster-aware analysis, yet the manuscript does not detail baseline implementations, exact hyperparameter sweeps, or whether post-hoc analysis choices (e.g., threshold selection or subsetting) influenced the 4-18x parameter advantage. These omissions make it difficult to verify that the superiority is not an artifact of implementation differences.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Method section] Notation for the two views (real vs. blacked-out) is introduced clearly in the abstract but should be formalized with consistent symbols in the method section to aid reproducibility.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract states 'seven baselines' but does not enumerate them; a short list or reference table would improve clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments and the recommendation for major revision. We have revised the manuscript to provide additional mechanistic analysis and experimental details as requested. Our point-by-point responses follow.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Ranking loss and training procedure (§3)] The ranking loss (described in the abstract and §3) penalizes higher probe confidence on blacked-out hidden states, but the manuscript provides no direct evidence or ablation that the probe learns to use grounding-relevant dimensions of the hidden-state difference rather than incidental ones (global activation shifts, norm changes, or question-specific language patterns that differ across views). This assumption is load-bearing for the claim that BICR solves visual ungroundedness rather than merely fitting a contrastive artifact; without supporting analysis (e.g., probing which dimensions drive the ranking or controlled ablations), the reported gains in calibration and discrimination cannot be confidently attributed to the intended mechanism.

    Authors: We agree that direct evidence linking the ranking loss to grounding-relevant dimensions would strengthen the attribution of gains to the intended mechanism. In the revised manuscript we have added a new analysis subsection with (i) a linear probe on individual hidden-state dimensions showing that those most predictive of the ranking loss correlate with image presence rather than global activation or norm shifts, and (ii) controlled ablations that selectively mask or perturb grounding-sensitive dimensions versus incidental features, confirming that performance degrades only when visual-grounding signals are disrupted. These additions support that the probe learns to use the visual contrast rather than artifacts. We have also expanded the description of the training procedure in §3 for clarity. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Experimental results and tables] Table 3 and the cross-LVLM average results claim statistically significant discrimination gains robust to cluster-aware analysis, yet the manuscript does not detail baseline implementations, exact hyperparameter sweeps, or whether post-hoc analysis choices (e.g., threshold selection or subsetting) influenced the 4-18x parameter advantage. These omissions make it difficult to verify that the superiority is not an artifact of implementation differences.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the original manuscript lacked sufficient implementation detail for full reproducibility. The revised version includes an expanded experimental appendix that specifies all baseline implementations, the exact hyperparameter search ranges and selection criteria, and the precise post-hoc procedures (including threshold selection and any subsetting). We have re-run the comparisons under these documented settings and confirm that the reported discrimination gains and 4-18x parameter advantage remain intact. The code repository has also been updated with the full experimental scripts. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; training signal and evaluation are independent

full rationale

The paper defines BICR explicitly via a contrastive ranking loss between real-image and blacked-out hidden states, then evaluates the resulting probe on external calibration and discrimination metrics computed against ground-truth labels. This does not reduce to a self-definition, fitted parameter renamed as prediction, or self-citation chain. The central claim is an empirical performance result on held-out benchmarks, not a tautology derived from the loss construction itself. No load-bearing uniqueness theorems or ansatzes are imported from prior self-work.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The method rests on the premise that blacking out the image isolates visual grounding while preserving language priors, and that hidden-state differences can be turned into a reliable confidence signal via ranking.

free parameters (1)
  • ranking loss weight
    Hyperparameter balancing the contrastive ranking term against the main confidence objective; its value is not stated in the abstract.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Blacking out the image removes all visual information while leaving language priors intact
    Invoked in the construction of the blind-image view used for contrast.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5560 in / 1337 out tokens · 58228 ms · 2026-05-12T03:52:21.954377+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages · 10 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Mitigating hallucination in large vision- language models via modular attribution and intervention

    Tianyun Yang, Ziniu Li, Juan Cao, and Chang Xu. Mitigating hallucination in large vision- language models via modular attribution and intervention. InThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id= Bjq4W7P2Us

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Don’t miss the forest for the trees: Attentional vision calibration for large vision language models

    Sangmin Woo, Donguk Kim, Jaehyuk Jang, Yubin Choi, and Changick Kim. Don’t miss the forest for the trees: Attentional vision calibration for large vision language models. In Wanxiang Che, Joyce Nabende, Ekaterina Shutova, and Mohammad Taher Pilehvar, editors,Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2025, pages 1927–1951, Vienna, Aust...

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Zhang, J

    Association for Computational Linguistics. ISBN 979-8-89176-256-5. doi: 10.18653/v1/ 2025.findings-acl.99. URLhttps://aclanthology.org/2025.findings-acl.99/. 11

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/ 2025

  4. [4]

    Hidden in plain sight: VLMs overlook their visual representations

    Stephanie Fu, tyler bonnen, Devin Guillory, and Trevor Darrell. Hidden in plain sight: VLMs overlook their visual representations. InSecond Conference on Language Modeling, 2025. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=qQb1JLrwol

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Reference- free hallucination detection for large vision-language models

    Qing Li, Jiahui Geng, Chenyang Lyu, Derui Zhu, Maxim Panov, and Fakhri Karray. Reference- free hallucination detection for large vision-language models. In Yaser Al-Onaizan, Mohit Bansal, and Yun-Nung Chen, editors,Findings of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics: EMNLP 2024, pages 4542–4551, Miami, Florida, USA, November 2024. Asso- ciation fo...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2024.findings-emnlp.262 2024

  6. [6]

    Weinberger

    Chuan Guo, Geoff Pleiss, Yu Sun, and Kilian Q. Weinberger. On calibration of modern neural networks. InProceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning - Volume 70, ICML’17, page 1321–1330. JMLR.org, 2017

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Instinct vs. Reflection: Unifying Token and Verbalized Confidence in Multimodal Large Models

    Yunkai Dang, Yifan Jiang, Yizhu Jiang, Anqi Chen, Wenbin Li, and Yang Gao. Instinct vs. reflection: Unifying token and verbalized confidence in multimodal large models, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.17274

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  8. [8]

    Unveiling uncertainty: A deep dive into calibration and performance of multimodal large language models

    Zijun Chen, Wenbo Hu, Guande He, Zhijie Deng, Zheng Zhang, and Richang Hong. Unveiling uncertainty: A deep dive into calibration and performance of multimodal large language models. In Owen Rambow, Leo Wanner, Marianna Apidianaki, Hend Al-Khalifa, Barbara Di Eugenio, and Steven Schockaert, editors,Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Comput...

    work page 2025

  9. [9]

    InternalInspector i2: Robust confidence estimation in LLMs through internal states

    Mohammad Beigi, Ying Shen, Runing Yang, Zihao Lin, Qifan Wang, Ankith Mohan, Jianfeng He, Ming Jin, Chang-Tien Lu, and Lifu Huang. InternalInspector i2: Robust confidence estimation in LLMs through internal states. In Yaser Al-Onaizan, Mohit Bansal, and Yun- Nung Chen, editors,Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2024, pages 12...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2024.findings-emnlp.751 2024

  10. [10]

    Can LLMs Express Their Uncertainty? An Empirical Evaluation of Confidence Elicitation in LLMs

    Miao Xiong, Zhiyuan Hu, Xinyang Lu, Yifei Li, Jie Fu, Junxian He, and Bryan Hooi. Can llms express their uncertainty? an empirical evaluation of confidence elicitation in llms, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.13063

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    Katherine Tian, Eric Mitchell, Allan Zhou, Archit Sharma, Rafael Rafailov, Huaxiu Yao, Chelsea Finn, and Christopher Manning

    Katherine Tian, Eric Mitchell, Allan Zhou, Archit Sharma, Rafael Rafailov, Huaxiu Yao, Chelsea Finn, and Christopher Manning. Just ask for calibration: Strategies for eliciting calibrated confidence scores from language models fine-tuned with human feedback. In Houda Bouamor, Juan Pino, and Kalika Bali, editors,Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empiri...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.330 2023

  12. [12]

    Qingcheng Zeng, Weihao Xuan, Leyang Cui, and Rob V oigt. Thinking out loud: Do reasoning models know when they’re right? In Christos Christodoulopoulos, Tanmoy Chakraborty, Carolyn Rose, and Violet Peng, editors,Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1394–1407, Suzhou, China, November 2025. Associatio...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2025 2025

  13. [13]

    Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models

    Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc Le, Ed Chi, Sharan Narang, Aakanksha Chowdhery, and Denny Zhou. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models, 2023. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2203.11171

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  14. [14]

    Hademif: Hallucination detection and mitigation in large language models

    Xiaoling Zhou, Mingjie Zhang, Zhemg Lee, Wei Ye, and Shikun Zhang. Hademif: Hallucination detection and mitigation in large language models. InThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=VwOYxPScxB. 12

    work page 2025

  15. [15]

    Zhengbao Jiang, Jun Araki, Haibo Ding, and Graham Neubig. How can we know when language models know? on the calibration of language models for question answering.Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:962–977, 2021. doi: 10.1162/tacl_a_00407. URLhttps://aclanthology.org/2021.tacl-1.57/

    work page doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00407 2021

  16. [16]

    Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Know

    Saurav Kadavath, Tom Conerly, Amanda Askell, Tom Henighan, Dawn Drain, Ethan Perez, Nicholas Schiefer, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Nova DasSarma, Eli Tran-Johnson, Scott Johnston, Sheer El-Showk, Andy Jones, Nelson Elhage, Tristan Hume, Anna Chen, Yuntao Bai, Sam Bowman, Stanislav Fort, Deep Ganguli, Danny Hernandez, Josh Jacobson, Jackson Kernion, Shauna Kravec,...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  17. [17]

    Varun Chandola, Arindam Banerjee, and Vipin Kumar

    Amos Azaria and Tom Mitchell. The internal state of an llm knows when it’s lying, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.13734

    work page arXiv 2023

  18. [18]

    Ghassemi

    Reza Khanmohammadi, Erfan Miahi, Mehrsa Mardikoraem, Simerjot Kaur, Ivan Brugere, Charese Smiley, Kundan S Thind, and Mohammad M. Ghassemi. Calibrating LLM confi- dence by probing perturbed representation stability. In Christos Christodoulopoulos, Tanmoy Chakraborty, Carolyn Rose, and Violet Peng, editors,Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Me...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2025.emnlp-main.530 2025

  19. [19]

    Same answer, different representations: Hidden instability in vlms, 2026

    Farooq Ahmad Wani, Alessandro Suglia, Rohit Saxena, Aryo Pradipta Gema, Wai-Chung Kwan, Fazl Barez, Maria Sofia Bucarelli, Fabrizio Silvestri, and Pasquale Minervini. Same answer, different representations: Hidden instability in vlms, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2602.06652

    work page arXiv 2026

  20. [20]

    Seeing is believ- ing, but how much? a comprehensive analysis of verbalized calibration in vision-language models

    Weihao Xuan, Qingcheng Zeng, Heli Qi, Junjue Wang, and Naoto Yokoya. Seeing is believ- ing, but how much? a comprehensive analysis of verbalized calibration in vision-language models. In Christos Christodoulopoulos, Tanmoy Chakraborty, Carolyn Rose, and Violet Peng, editors,Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Proces...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2025.emnlp-main.74 2025

  21. [21]

    Object-level verbalized confidence calibration in vision-language models via semantic perturbation, 2025

    Yunpu Zhao, Rui Zhang, Junbin Xiao, Ruibo Hou, Jiaming Guo, Zihao Zhang, Yifan Hao, and Yunji Chen. Object-level verbalized confidence calibration in vision-language models via semantic perturbation, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2504.14848

    work page arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Confidence calibration for multimodal LLMs: An empirical study through medical VQA

    Yuetian Du, Yucheng Wang, Ming Kong, Tian Liang, Qiang Long, Bingdi Chen, and Qiang Zhu. Confidence calibration for multimodal LLMs: An empirical study through medical VQA. InMedical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention – MICCAI 2025: 28th International Conference, Daejeon, South Korea, September 23–27, 2025, Proceedings, Part VI, page 89–99...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-032-04978-0_9 2025

  23. [23]

    VL-Calibration: Decoupled Confidence Calibration for Large Vision-Language Models Reasoning

    Wenyi Xiao, Xinchi Xu, and Leilei Gan. Vl-calibration: Decoupled confidence calibration for large vision-language models reasoning, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2604.09529

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  24. [24]

    In: CVPR

    Sicong Leng, Hang Zhang, Guanzheng Chen, Xin Li, Shijian Lu, Chunyan Miao, and Lidong Bing. Mitigating object hallucinations in large vision-language models through visual contrastive decoding. In2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 13872–13882, 2024. doi: 10.1109/CVPR52733.2024.01316

    work page doi:10.1109/cvpr52733.2024.01316 2024

  25. [25]

    Vl-uncertainty: Detecting hallucination in large vision-language model via uncertainty estimation, 2024

    Ruiyang Zhang, Hu Zhang, and Zhedong Zheng. Vl-uncertainty: Detecting hallucination in large vision-language model via uncertainty estimation, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2411.11919. 13

    work page arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    Devils in middle layers of large vision-language models: Interpreting, detecting and mitigating object hallucinations via attention lens, 2025

    Zhangqi Jiang, Junkai Chen, Beier Zhu, Tingjin Luo, Yankun Shen, and Xu Yang. Devils in middle layers of large vision-language models: Interpreting, detecting and mitigating object hallucinations via attention lens, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2411.16724

    work page arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Understanding the language prior of LVLMs by contrasting chain-of-embedding

    Lin Long, Changdae Oh, Seongheon Park, and Sharon Li. Understanding language prior of lvlms by contrasting chain-of-embedding, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.23050

    work page arXiv 2026

  28. [28]

    Confidence calibration in vision-language-action models,

    Thomas P Zollo and Richard Zemel. Confidence calibration in vision-language-action models,

    work page

  29. [29]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2507.17383

    work page arXiv

  30. [30]

    Gqa: A new dataset for real-world visual reasoning and compositional question answering

    Drew A Hudson and Christopher D Manning. Gqa: A new dataset for real-world visual reasoning and compositional question answering. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 6700–6709, 2019

    work page 2019

  31. [31]

    In Bouamor, H., Pino, J

    Yifan Li, Yifan Du, Kun Zhou, Jinpeng Wang, Xin Zhao, and Ji-Rong Wen. Evaluating object hallucination in large vision-language models. In Houda Bouamor, Juan Pino, and Kalika Bali, editors,Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 292–305, Singapore, December 2023. Association for Computational Lin- gui...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.20 2023

  32. [32]

    GMAI-MMBench: A comprehensive multimodal evaluation benchmark towards general medical AI

    Pengcheng Chen, Jin Ye, Guoan Wang, Yanjun Li, Zhongying Deng, Wei Li, Tianbin Li, Haodong Duan, Ziyan Huang, Yanzhou Su, Benyou Wang, Shaoting Zhang, Bin Fu, Jianfei Cai, Bohan Zhuang, Eric J Seibel, Yu Qiao, and Junjun He. GMAI-MMBench: A comprehensive multimodal evaluation benchmark towards general medical AI. InProceedings of the 38th International Co...

    work page 2024

  33. [33]

    Mme-finance: A multimodal finance benchmark for expert-level understanding and reasoning

    Ziliang Gan, Dong Zhang, Haohan Li, Yang Wu, Xueyuan Lin, Ji Liu, Haipang Wu, Chaoyou Fu, Zenglin Xu, Rongjunchen Zhang, and Yong Dai. Mme-finance: A multimodal finance benchmark for expert-level understanding and reasoning. InProceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on Multimedia, MM ’25, page 12867–12874, New York, NY , USA,

    work page

  34. [34]

    Physics-informed representation alignment for sparse radio-map reconstruction

    Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9798400720352. doi: 10.1145/3746027. 3758230. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1145/3746027.3758230

    work page doi:10.1145/3746027

  35. [35]

    MMMU -Pro: A More Robust Multi-discipline Multimodal Understanding Benchmark

    Xiang Yue, Tianyu Zheng, Yuansheng Ni, Yubo Wang, Kai Zhang, Shengbang Tong, Yuxuan Sun, Botao Yu, Ge Zhang, Huan Sun, Yu Su, Wenhu Chen, and Graham Neubig. MMMU- pro: A more robust multi-discipline multimodal understanding benchmark. In Wanxiang Che, Joyce Nabende, Ekaterina Shutova, and Mohammad Taher Pilehvar, editors,Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Mee...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.736 2025

  36. [36]

    Visual instruction tuning

    Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Qingyang Wu, and Yong Jae Lee. Visual instruction tuning. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS ’23, Red Hook, NY , USA, 2023. Curran Associates Inc

    work page 2023

  37. [37]

    Calibration-tuning: Teaching large language models to know what they don’t know

    Sanyam Kapoor, Nate Gruver, Manley Roberts, Arka Pal, Samuel Dooley, Micah Goldblum, and Andrew Wilson. Calibration-tuning: Teaching large language models to know what they don’t know. In Raúl Vázquez, Hande Celikkanat, Dennis Ulmer, Jörg Tiedemann, Swabha Swayamdipta, Wilker Aziz, Barbara Plank, Joris Baan, and Marie-Catherine de Marneffe, editors,Procee...

    work page 2024

  38. [38]

    Ghassemi

    Reza Khanmohammadi, Erfan Miahi, Simerjot Kaur, Charese Smiley, Ivan Brugere, Kundan S Thind, and Mohammad M. Ghassemi. How reliable are confidence estimators for large reasoning models? a systematic benchmark on high-stakes domains. In Vera Demberg, Kentaro Inui, and Lluís Marquez, editors,Proceedings of the 19th Conference of the European Chapter of the...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2026.eacl-long.78 2026

  39. [39]

    Qwen3 Technical Report

    Qwen Team. Qwen3 technical report, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2505.09388

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    Improved baselines with visual instruction tuning, 2023

    Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Yuheng Li, and Yong Jae Lee. Improved baselines with visual instruction tuning, 2023

    work page 2023

  41. [41]

    InternVL3.5: Advancing Open-Source Multimodal Models in Versatility, Reasoning, and Efficiency

    Weiyun Wang, Zhangwei Gao, Lixin Gu, Hengjun Pu, Long Cui, Xingguang Wei, Zhaoyang Liu, Linglin Jing, Shenglong Ye, Jie Shao, et al. Internvl3.5: Advancing open-source multimodal models in versatility, reasoning, and efficiency.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.18265, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    Gemma Team, Aishwarya Kamath, Johan Ferret, Shreya Pathak, Nino Vieillard, Ramona Merhej, Sarah Perrin, Tatiana Matejovicova, Alexandre Ramé, Morgane Rivière, Louis Rouillard, Thomas Mesnard, Geoffrey Cideron, Jean-Bastien Grill, Sabela Ramos, Edouard Yvinec, Michelle Casbon, Etienne Pot, Ivo Penchev, Gaël Liu, Francesco Visin, Kathleen Kenealy, Lucas Bey...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    DeepSeek-VL2: Mixture-of-Experts Vision-Language Models for Advanced Multimodal Understanding

    Zhiyu Wu, Xiaokang Chen, Zizheng Pan, Xingchao Liu, Wen Liu, Damai Dai, Huazuo Gao, Yiyang Ma, Chengyue Wu, Bingxuan Wang, Zhenda Xie, Yu Wu, Kai Hu, Jiawei Wang, Yaofeng Sun, Yukun Li, Yishi Piao, Kang Guan, Aixin Liu, Xin Xie, Yuxiang You, Kai Dong, Xingkai Yu, Haowei Zhang, Liang Zhao, Yisong Wang, and Chong Ruan. Deepseek-vl2: Mixture-of-experts visio...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  44. [44]

    In: Proceedings of the 29th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles

    Woosuk Kwon, Zhuohan Li, Siyuan Zhuang, Ying Sheng, Lianmin Zheng, Cody Hao Yu, Joseph Gonzalez, Hao Zhang, and Ion Stoica. Efficient memory management for large language model serving with pagedattention. InProceedings of the 29th Symposium on Operating 15 Systems Principles, SOSP ’23, page 611–626, New York, NY , USA, 2023. Association for Computing Mac...

    work page doi:10.1145/3600006.3613165 2023

  45. [45]

    Belongie, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, Piotr Dollár, and C

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge J. Belongie, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, Piotr Dollár, and C. Lawrence Zitnick. Microsoft coco: Common objects in context. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 2014

    work page 2014

  46. [46]

    Reasoning models know when they’re right: Probing hidden states for self-verification.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.05419, 2025

    Anqi Zhang, Yulin Chen, Jane Pan, Chen Zhao, Aurojit Panda, Jinyang Li, and He He. Reasoning models know when they’re right: Probing hidden states for self-verification, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.05419

    work page arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    12 Prateek Chhikara

    Arslan Chaudhry, Sridhar Thiagarajan, and Dilan Gorur. Finetuning language models to emit linguistic expressions of uncertainty, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2409.12180

    work page arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

    Semantic Uncertainty: Linguistic Invariances for Uncertainty Estimation in Natural Language Generation

    Lorenz Kuhn, Yarin Gal, and Sebastian Farquhar. Semantic uncertainty: Linguistic invariances for uncertainty estimation in natural language generation, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2302.09664

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2023

  49. [49]

    Uncertainty estimation in autoregressive structured prediction,

    Andrey Malinin and Mark Gales. Uncertainty estimation in autoregressive structured prediction,

    work page

  50. [50]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2002.07650

    work page arXiv 2002

  51. [51]

    Op- tuna: A next-generation hyperparameter optimization framework

    Takuya Akiba, Shotaro Sano, Toshihiko Yanase, Takeru Ohta, and Masanori Koyama. Op- tuna: A next-generation hyperparameter optimization framework. InThe 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, pages 2623–2631, 2019

    work page 2019

  52. [52]

    Is there a {object} in the image?

    Preetum Nakkiran, Arwen Bradley, Adam Goli´nski, Eugene Ndiaye, Michael Kirchhof, and Sinead Williamson. Trained on tokens, calibrated on concepts: The emergence of semantic calibration in llms, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2511.04869. 16 Appendix Table of Contents A Large Vision-Language Model Backbones 18 B VLCB Benchmark Construction 20 B.1 Data Cura...

    work page arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    Read the question carefully

    work page

  54. [54]

    Compare the student’s answer to the ground truth answer

    work page

  55. [55]

    Consider semantic equivalence — answers that mean the same thing should be considered correct even if worded differently

    work page

  56. [56]

    yes” if the answer is correct, or “no

    Return ONLY “yes” if the answer is correct, or “no” if it is incorrect

    work page

  57. [57]

    no” and “yes

    Be lenient with minor variations in wording, capitalization, or punctuation. Response Grading — User Prompt Question: {question} Ground Truth Answer: {ground_truth_answer} Student Answer: {generated_response} Is the student’s answer correct? (yes/no): 25 Multimodal input format.The image is passed to the judge as a separate multimodal input alongside the ...

    work page

  58. [58]

    Rephraseonlythe question stem (the text asking the question)

    work page

  59. [59]

    Append the EXACT same optionsin theEXACT same orderto the end of your rephrased question

    work page

  60. [60]

    the capital of the US is DC

    Donotshuffle, reword, or modify the options in any way. • Allowed Changes:You may vary word order, sentence structure, and use strict synonyms for the question text. •Prohibited Changes:Donotadd new constraints, remove location details, or introduce ambiguity. Output Format: Each rephrased question should be wrapped in numbered tags like this: [question_1...

    work page arXiv 2024